ICANN participation

A decade has passed since Jon Postel left our midst. It seems timely to look back beyond that decade and to look forward beyond a decade hence. It seems ironic that a man who took special joy in natural surroundings, who hiked the Muir Trail and spent precious time in the high Sierras was also deeply involved in that most artificial of enterprises, the Internet. As the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the RFC editor, Jon could hardly have chosen more polar interests. Perhaps the business of the artificial world was precisely what stimulated his interest in the natural one.

As a graduate student at UCLA in the late 1960s, Jon was deeply involved in the ARPANET project, becoming the first custodian of the Request for Comment note series inaugurated by Stephen D. Crocker. He also undertook to serve as the “Numbers Czar” tracking Domain Names, Internet Addresses, and all the parameters, numeric and otherwise, that were key to the successful functioning of the burgeoning ARPANET and, later, Internet protocols. His career took him to the east and west coasts of the United States but ultimately led him to the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute (ISI) where he joined his colleagues, Danny Cohen, Joyce K. Reynolds, Daniel Lynch, Paul Mockapetris and Robert Braden, among many others, who were themselves to play important roles in the evolution of the Internet.

It was at ISI that Jon served longest and as the end of the 20th Century approached, began to fashion an institutional home for the work he had so passionately and effectively carried out in support of the Internet. In consultation with many colleagues but particularly with Joseph Sims of the Jones Day law firm and Ira Magaziner, then at the Clinton administration White House, Jon worked to design an institution to assume the IANA responsibilities. Although the path to its creation was rocky, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was officially created in early October, 1998, just two weeks before Jon’s untimely death on October 16.

In 1998 there were an estimated 30 million computers on the Internet and an estimated 70 million users. In the ensuing decade, the user population has grown to almost 1.5 billion and the number of servers on the Internet now exceeds 500 million (not counting episodically connected laptops, personal digital assistants and other such devices). As this decade comes to a close, the Domain Name System is undergoing a major change to accommodate the use of non-Latin character sets in recognition that the world’s languages are not exclusively expressible in one script. A tidal wave of newly Internet-enabled devices as well as the increasing penetration of Internet access in the world’s population is consuming what remains of the current IPv4 address space, driving the need to adopt the much larger IPv6 address space in parallel with the older one. Over three billion mobiles are in use and roughly 15% of these are already Internet-enabled.

Jon would take considerable satisfaction knowing that the institution he worked hard to create has survived and contributed materially to the stability of the Internet. Not only has ICANN managed to meet the serious demands of Internet growth and importance in all aspects of society, but it has become a worked example of a new kind of international body that embraces and perhaps even defines a multi-stakeholder model of policy making. Governments, civil society, the private sector and the technical community are accommodated in the ICANN policy development process. By no means a perfect and frictionless process, it nonetheless has managed to take decisions and to adapt to the changing demands and new business developments rooted in the spread of the Internet around the globe.

Always a strong believer in the open and bottom-up style of the Internet, Jon would also be pleased to see that the management of the Internet address space has become regionalized and that there are now five Regional Internet Registries cooperating on global policy and serving and adapting to regional needs as they evolve. He would be equally relieved to find that the loose collaboration of DNS root zone operators has withstood the test of time and the demands of a hugely larger Internet, showing that their commitment has served the Internet community well. Jon put this strong belief into practice as he was founder and ex-officio trustee of ARIN.

As the very first individual member of the Internet Society he helped to found in 1992, Jon would certainly be pleased that it has become a key contributor to the support of the Internet protocol standards process, as intended. The Internet Architecture Board and Internet Engineering and Research Task Forces as well as the RFC editing functions all receive substantial support from the Internet Society. He might be surprised and pleased to discover that much of this support is derived from the Internet Society’s creation of the Public Internet Registry to operate the .ORG top level domain registry. The Internet Society’s scope has increased significantly as a consequence of this stable support and it contributes to global education and training about the Internet as well as to the broad policy developments needed for effective use of this new communication infrastructure.

As a computer scientist and naturalist, Jon would also be fascinated and excited by the development of an interplanetary extension of the Internet to support manned and robotic exploration of the Solar System. This very month, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory will begin testing of an interplanetary protocol using the Deep Impact spacecraft now in eccentric orbit around the sun. This project began almost exactly ten years ago and is reaching a major milestone as the first decade of the 21st Century comes to an end.

It is probable that Jon would not agree with all the various choices and decisions that have been made regarding the Internet in the last ten years and it is worth remembering his philosophical view:

“Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive.”

Of course, he meant this in the context of detailed protocols but it also serves as a reminder that in a multi-stakeholder world, accommodation and understanding can go a long way towards reaching consensus or, failing that, at least toleration of choices that might not be at the top of everyone’s list.

No one, not even someone of Jon’s vision, can predict where the Internet will end up decades hence. It is certain, however, that it will evolve and that this evolution will come, in large measure, from its users. Virtually all the most interesting new applications of the Internet have come, not from the providers of various Internet-based services but from ordinary users with extraordinary ideas and the skills to try things out. That they are able to do this is a consequence of the largely open and non-discriminatory access to the Internet that has prevailed over the past decade. Maintaining this spirit of open access is the key to further development and it seems a reasonable speculation that if Jon were still with us, he would be in the forefront of the Internet community in vocal and articulate support of that view.

A ten-year toast seems in order. Here’s to Jonathan B. Postel, a man who went about his work diligently and humbly, who served all who wished to partake of the Internet and to contribute to it, and who did so asking nothing in return but the satisfaction of a job well done and a world open to new ideas.

Vint Cerf
Woodhurst
October 2008

La prochaine réunion de l’ICANN se tiendra du 1er au 7 novembre 2008 au Caire, Capitale de l’Egypte. L’agenda est maintenant en ligne sur le site dédié à cette 3e et dernière réunion internationale de 2008.

Après la réunion du Conseil du GNSO le samedi 1er novembre, plusieurs ateliers sont prévus dès le dimanche, notamment des sessions d’explications sur deux des sujets phares du moment : les nouveaux gTLDs et les IDNs.

Cette 33e réunion ICANN sera officiellement ouverte le lundi 3 novembre avec la cérémonie d’accueil, suivie de la présentation par le président de l’ICANN de son rapport. Un atelier est également prévu à 11h15 pour expliquer le projet d’appel à candidatures pour la création de nouveaux gTLDs.

La gouvernance sera le sujet principal mercredi, avec des ateliers liés aux aspects de gouvernance de l’Internet et aussi le “PSC” (President’s Strategy Committee, c’est-à-dire le Comité Stratégique du Président, dont la fonction est de travailler sur les moyens de renforcer le modèle multi-acteurs de l’ICANN).

Le jeudi 6 novembre sera la journée du forum public durant lequel chacun peut s’exprimer librement et échanger avec les membres du Conseil d’administration de l’ICANN. La réunion se terminera le vendredi 7 novembre par la réunion du Conseil.

IPv6 is in the news because the mainstream media have started to pick up the fact that IPv4 will be fully allocated in the next two or three years. And IPv6 deployment is important if we want to keep the Internet growing sustainably.

So where is IPv6 deployment most evident? It’s a very difficult thing to measure. It is difficult to measure the amount of IPv6 traffic as so much of it is tunneled inside of IPv4. And anyway, tunneled traffic is probably from end users rather than ISPs, but we need ISPs to deploy IPv6 to allow the Internet to grow. So how can we see where ISPs are deploying IPv6 in their networks?

One possible measure of IPv6 deployment in ISPs is the number of IPv6 address blocks (prefixes) seen in the routing table in comparison with the the number of autonomous systems (ASs - roughly equivalent to ISPs) in a region. Geoff Huston has a regional breakdown of advertised ASs on his web site and the SixXS project has a regional breakdown of the IPv6 address blocks visible per region on its web site.

AfriNIC, the Regional Internet Registry for Africa and parts of the Indian Ocean, has a higher proportion of networks in its region announcing IPv6 addresses than the others. Africa also has a smaller deployed base but IPv6’s size is designed to support exactly the kind of network growth that highly populated areas, like Africa and Asia will see as their deployed base grows in the next few years.

Proportion of ASs in RIPE NCC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in APNIC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in ARIN service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in LACNIC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in AfriNIC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Every year there are new world events that see possible border changes and a restructure to the way the world’s countries and territories are configured. Think back to 50 years ago, and the world’s map was very different. There are literally a hundred countries that exist today that did not exist a hundred years ago. I wonder what country code the Ottoman Empire would have?

As these events occur, ICANN invariably receives requests to recognise new sovereign entities. In some cases we see very inaccurate press reports by “experts” on how country codes will be assigned. Thankfully, we have a very clear process for this that it is worth repeating.

I said in a blog post a couple of years ago the following:

Another thing ICANN is not involved in is deciding the actual codes, or what constitutes a country eligible for a code. Valid country codes are defined by the ISO 3166-1 standard, which is used internationally not just for domain names — but for physical mail routing, currency codes, and more. The ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency is responsible for keeping the list of codes up to date, taking advice from the United Nations Statistics Office on what constitutes a country eligible for a country code.

By ensuring ICANN is not tasked with deciding what country codes are valid, ICANN can focus its coordination role by ensuring the country-code domains in the DNS root zone match those allowed by the ISO standard. When new countries are formed, new ISO codes are created, and ultimately they can be added as new country code domains. Similarly, countries disappear, their codes are revoked, and they are retired from the DNS root zone.

It is as true today as it was when this policy was introduced in the mid-1980s. We have a more formal description up online, but fundamentally recognition of a new entity that might be granted a country code originates with recognition by the United Nations. Once that occurs, it will kick off a chain of events that will see a new two letter code added to the ISO 3166-1 standard. Once it is in that standard, IANA will accept applications from suitably qualified candidates to operate the country code domain (see our delegation process described here).

This is what happened most recently in the case of Montenegro. In June 2006 it declared independence, was recognised by the United Nations, and added to the ISO 3166-1 standard in September 2006. Some time after this, the Government of Montenegro approached ICANN for delegation, and once the formal process was concluded, .ME was added to the DNS root zone in September 2007.

As at this time, Abkhazia, Kosovo, Transnistria, Somaliland, South Ossetia and others are not in the ISO 3166-1 standard, so ICANN is not in a position to grant any corresponding country-code domain for them. By strictly adhering to the ISO 3166-1 standard, we ensure that ICANN remains neutral by relying upon a widely recognised and impartial international standard.

On 10-11 September 2008, ICANN hosted its third Asia/Pacific regional gathering in Seoul, Korea. The regional gathering approach to broadening participation in the ICANN process for gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars was first introduced in February 2005 in Brussels, Belgium. And, since that time, ICANN has conducted annually three outreach events – one each in the Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America regions. As the participation in the community continues to expand to all parts of the world, ICANN anticipates adjusting the model to include other areas such as Latin America/Caribbean Islands, South America, Africa and the Middle East.

The event in Seoul was the largest gathering to date with more than 68 participants representing 26 registrars and six registries. And, of the 56 registrar participants, 54% reported that they had not previously attended an ICANN meeting. Also, for the first time since the inception of the gatherings, presentation materials were provided in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Additionally, clean and red-lined versions of the RAA and proposed changes were provided in the same languages.

Topics presented at the gathering included a summary of the outcomes of the recent Paris meeting, proposed amendments to the RAA, protection of registrants (registrar data escrow/interim terminated registrar transition plan and registry failover), IDNs, new gTLDs, compliance/UDRP, GNSO policy items, IPv4/IPv6, and recent Board actions around the Add Grace Period (AGP).

The event was supported through generous contributions from DotAsia, Afilias and NeuStar.

For further information about this event, please contact Craig Schwartz or Tim Cole.

Como Brasileira, e uma grande satisfação poder ler as noticias publicadas pela ICANN em Português. Espero que isso aumente a participação e interesse dos internautas no Brasil e outros paises de lingua portuguesa. A ICANN agradece o Registro .br por ter dedicado tempo e recursos nessa iniciativa. Um grande exemplo de cooperação e parceria.

http://www.icann.org/pt/announcements/

Karla Valente

Diretora de Programa das Novas GTLDs, ICANN

This is a screengrab of the ICANN front page. You’ll notice that it’s slightly different. The changes are explained briefly below, but we’d like to take this opportunity to ask people to think about the future of the website - it’s overall look and it’s overall functioning.

Some of you will have noticed that the front page has been changing in small increments over the past six months or so: we’ve been trying to give the site a little more life, trying to flag up the most important and most recent information and so on.

This time, we have given announcements a little more prominence, as well as moved the bottom box that contained links through to ongoing work to the middle of the page. (And a few other small things.)

A redesign?

But despite our efforts, it remains a consistent complaint that information is hard to find on the ICANN site. (It doesn’t help that over the course of the past two years, ICANN has been producing more and more content every month.) And so we recognize that at some point soon there is going to have to be a complete redesign of the site, with every aspect reviewed and revised.

This blog post is a very small step in that direction in that we are asking you: what do you think we should do? What needs to be changed? What is better? What used to better, and why? What is the information you have difficulty finding? What is the sort of information that is of most importance to you? Would you like to see more video? Or more graphics? A cleaner design? Or a more busy one?

Please use this blog post and its comments function as a way to give us some of your ideas.

But before we get there, just for reflection and interest, here’s a quick rundown of the ICANN site over the years, complete with images.



This is the very first version of the ICANN site dating from January 1999. One link on the front page went through to the “ICANN Startup Fund”, and at the top was an explanation of what ICANN actually was: “… the new non-profit corporation that was formed to take over responsibility for the IP address space allocation…”

Bare yet simple.

As ICANN began to form (November 1999), the site grew more complex with links to announcements and to Supporting Organizations. Correspondence and Minutes appeared, as well as registration to the next ICANN meeting. The beginning of ICANN’s dalliance with bright colours began.



Two years later (October 2001), and the bright blue begins to spread dangerously…



And then, with the world governments’ eyes turned to ICANN in the first stage of the WSIS process, the site saw its second re-design in December 2003. If you wanted to know what it was that ICANN did, you could find just about every aspect of it in one of the boxes on the front page.

ICANN had, of course, continued to produce huge amounts of work, documents, presentations, letters and so on over the past five years, and the site tried to find a way of making it more accessible. To some degree, it worked, and the design stuck.



Nearly three years later (August 2006), and the everything-up-front approach had started to exhaust people. A redesign was called for and announced to the community with a special wiki site set up to gather input. The front page cooled down a little:



And all that was in preparation for the third redesign. The long lists were pulled into tabs running along the top; the migraine blue reappeared but so did calmer grades of other colours. A quick links choice was added, graphics appeared. The site started using CSS sheets and standard web design approaches. Everything seemed a little more organized.



And then the first video appeared, as well as information other than the organization’s announcements.



And then, with the front page opened up, the front page was given a more magazine feel, with more information about what was important and what people were interested in taking up space that has previously been controlled by whatever the latest announcement was.

The announcements were reduced to three, graphics pointing to main sister sites added to the left, and information on the front changed frequently as newsletters, and consultations, and public comment periods and magazines came and went.

Finally we end up where we are today, with five announcements up front, varying front page content and the main work pages of the organization given more prominence.



The question now is: what should the next iteration of the ICANN site look like?

Do we need to:

• Refocus on SOs and ACs?
• Or focus more heavily on particular issues?
• Add more graphics, or more videos?
• Rethink the colours or the design?
• Change the tabs and the linking pages?
• Reduce or increase the space given to announcements?
• Or, maybe, hire a professional design firm to suggest the answers?

As you know by now, all comments and thoughts welcome.

Mark these words: before you know it, you will grow to actually like the ICANN website.

The selections of the 2008 Nominating Committee have just been announced. They include:

• Two new Board members
• Two members of the ALAC
• One member of the ccNSO Council
• One member of the GNSO Council

In total, 78 individuals applied (13 female and 65 male). The geographic split saw 27 apply from Europe, 20 from North America, 15 from Africa, 14 from Asia-Pacific and 8 from Latin America and the Caribbean.

All the successful applicants, introduced below, will take up their positions at ICANN’s 33rd international public meeting in Cairo, starting on 2 November. We wish them all the best in their new roles.

Board of Directors

The ICANN Board makes all final decisions pertaining to ICANN’s work. It comprises 21 members - 15 voting and six non-voting. The Nominating Committee chooses eight of the voting members, a majority, over a three-year period.

In addition, each of the three supporting organizations within ICANN chooses two voting members each, and the president (also the CEO) makes up the final voting member. The non-voting members are liaisons from each of the six advisory committees.

The successful applicants will serve a three-year term on the Board and they are:

Steve Crocker (USA, North America)

Dr Steve Crocker has served on the ICANN board as a non-voting liaison representing the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) since 2003. He is the CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro, a company focused on dynamic sharing of information across the Internet. He has also served on the board of the Internet Society (2003-06).

Dr Crocker has been involved in the Internet since its inception. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, he was part of the team that developed the protocols for the Arpanet and laid the foundation for today’s Internet. He organized the Network Working Group, which was the forerunner of the modern Internet Engineering Task Force, and initiated the Request for Comment (RFC) series. He remains active in Internet standards work through the IETF and IAB. For this work, he was awarded the 2002 IEEE Internet Award.

Dr Crocker’s experience includes research management at DARPA, USC/ISI and The Aerospace Corporation, and co-founder of CyberCash and Longitude Systems. He earned his BA in mathematics and PhD in computer science at UCLA, and he studied artificial intelligence at MIT.

“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my time as SSAC chair and liaison to the Board. But I’ve done it for long enough and I think for the health of the organization, we should have a transition.

“The organization is going through maturation and I want to be a part of helping it evolve while making sure that the technical aspects run smoothly with the organizational aspects.”

Katim S. Touray (Gambia, Africa)

Dr Katim S. Touray is an independent development consultant based in Gambia. A follower of the early Internet, he is a well-known advocate for the network and its uses across a range of media and to a wide variety of audiences for over 15 years.

With a B.Agric, an MS, and PhD degrees in Soil Science (from the universities of Nigeria, Montana State and Wisconsin-Madison, respectively), Dr Touray worked for a number of years for Ministry of Agriculture in The Gambia, and serves as Chairman of the National Agricultural Development Agency (NADA). He has also conducted consultancies on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the media, HIV/AIDS, and other subjects for non-governmental organizations, as well as government and UN agencies.

Dr Touray has significant experience as a producer and host of African music, educational, and public affairs programs on community radio and TV in the US, and national radio in Gambia. He has written a number of articles about the Internet and ICT, and helped found the Consumer Protection Association of The Gambia (CPAG). Dr Touray is self-educated about the Internet and ICT in general. He is also a free and open source software enthusiast and advocate, and serves on the Council of the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA).

“I’m really excited and looking forward to working in ICANN. It’s a privilege to have been chosen and I see it as a challenging opportunity.

“I hope to be an active representative of Africa on the Board of ICANN, representing not just the the middle classes but also those in villages who a lot of people don’t see as users but for whom the Internet will have a lot of benefit. I think I can also be an active member in helping to build bridges between the various interest groups, and ensure that the greater good is taken care of.”

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) represents the interests of individual Internet users within ICANN.

The Committee comprises 15 members - three from each of ICANN’s five geographic regions. Two members are chosen from each region by its Regional At Large Organization (RALO) and the third in each case is selected by the Nominating Committee. A chair is selected annually by the members.

Two of the five NomCom places were filled this year and the successful applicants will serve two-year terms. They are:

Alan Greenberg (Canada, North America)

Alan Greenberg has forty years of experience with computing and networking technologies. For much of his career, he worked for McGill University in Montreal, Canada, covering software design and development, education technology support, and management and policy development. He has taught courses in computer architecture and design, as well as managed Internet Society workshops which taught personnel from 150 developing countries how to build, support, manage and use the Internet in their countries.

Since retiring as Director of Computing and Telecommunications at McGill, he has served as an independent consultant focusing on the effective use of technology in developing countries. More recently he has worked with several donor countries providing guidance on how they should focus their technology-related support of developing and least-developed countries.

He has been a Nominating Committee appointee to the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) since 2006, also acting as liaison to the GNSO.

Mr Greenberg holds a BSc degree in Mathematics and Physics, and an MSc in Computer Science, both from McGill University.

“I am delighted to have been re-appointed to the ALAC. When I was first appointed two year ago, it was to the Interim ALAC, with 10 of its members appointed by the Board and five by the NomCom. Now all five RALOs are functioning and the ten Board-appointed members have been replaced by those selected within their own regions. I look forward to continuing to work with the ALAC, helping to ensure that it truly represents user issues and needs within ICANN.”

Adam Peake (UK, Europe)

Adam Peake has been involved in ICANN since its creation in 1998, most recently as Associate Chair of the Nominating Committee in 2006 and 2007.

He was an early member of the non-commercial users constituency, a founding member of the .ORG Advisory Council (to May 2006), and a member of the NAIS Project that in 2000-2001 contributed to the review of the At-Large elections and public representation and participation in ICANN.

Mr Peake is currently a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan, where he works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, performs follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students. He has been involved in Internet policy-making activities since the mid-1990s.

Mr Peake was co-coordinator of the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus from 2003 to 2006, and a member of the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) between 2006 and 2008. He is a UK citizen and currently lives in Japan.

“Having been a member of the Nominating Committee for a number of years, I’m very pleased to be able to add myself to the list of volunteers that I have seen go before me.

“ALAC is an essential part of ICANN’s multistakeholder model, and a great deal of effort has been put in to create the RALOs, but as yet we’re not managing to get voices coming through. So I hope I’ll be in a position to help with that essential user voice.”

ccNSO Council

The Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) develops policy and makes recommendations relating to country-code top-level domains within ICANN. Its decisions are made by the ccNSO Council.

The Council comprises 18 members - three from each of five geographic regions, plus three chosen by the Nominating Committee. Members of the ccNSO from each region select their three representatives. A chair is selected annually by the members.

One of the three NomCom places was filled this year and the successful applicant will serve a three-year term. That person:

Jian Zhang (China/USA, Asia-Pacific/North America)

Jian Zhang is the director of International Business and Policy Development department at CNNIC.
She has over 10 years of experiences in ICT and networking, having also worked at GTE Internetworking, Nextel Communications and Cisco Systems. At CNNIC, Ms Zhang has worked on both domestic and international policy areas, including policy analysis and development strategy. She is on the Board of the Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association (APTLD) - an organization for ccTLD registries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Ms Zhang has an MS in Information Systems from Northeastern University, Massachussets. She has hands-on experience with Internet technology and management as well as valuable skills in cross-cultural communications.

“I am quite honored by the Nominating Committee and I thank them for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Internet society.

“As a Council member I hope to make a contribution to the work that is going on, particularly with respect to international TLDs.”

GNSO Council

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is the main policy development arm of ICANN. Its decisions and recommendations are made by the GNSO Council.

There are 18 members of the GNSO Council, comprising three members from each of the GNSO’s six constituencies, plus three chosen by the Nominating Committee. There are also two non-voting liaisons and a chair chosen from the Council members.

The Nominating Committee 2008 chose one new Council member, who will serve a two-year term:

Terry Davis (USA, North America)

Terry Davis has over 30 years’ experience in large-scale systems and network design, security, implementation, and operations. Heralding from the aviation industry, he is currently in charge of Aircraft Network and Security Architecture & Strategy for Boeing and was previously the Chief Network Engineer for Connexion by Boeing, the in-flight Internet service.

Mr Davis has also been Vice-President of Professional Services for ViaLight, a fiber to the home company; a Technology Leader for Internet security company Adario; and Senior Corporate Security Architect for the Boeing as well as an aircraft simulation designer, network engineer, and system programmer.

An active contributor to and participant in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since 1992 and he is also a member of the North American IPv6 Task Force (NAv6TF). In addition, he has served his city and county governments for almost 20 years as a commissioner for Land Use and Development, Basin Water, and Cable TV.

Mr Davis holds a BS in Civil Engineering from Oklahoma State University and an MS in Strategic Planning for Critical Infrastructure from the University of Washington. He is a Boeing Technical Fellow, a member of the IEEE and the American Society of Civil Engineers, and is a registered professional engineer in Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington. He and his wife Jennie have been residents of Issaquah, Washington for over 20 years.

“I’m extremely honoured to have been selected - it surprised me very much. As to what I want to accomplish in the role, I think the domain name space is one of the most critical things going forward - we have some real challenges in TLDs as well as with security.

“The aviation industry, for example, is just beginning to make planes Internet capable, and there is lots of activity around aircraft naming and addressing. This is going to provide some real challenges.”

ICANN is becoming a more multilingual organization and in doing so has spent a year, with some expert help and plenty of useful feedback from the community, developing and implementing a translation programme.

We have now reached the stage where we need someone with sufficient expertise and experience to be able to oversee that programme as ICANN moves to making translation a part of its everyday processes and systems.

The job of “Translation Coordinator” was first recommended by our two independent experts over six months ago and we are now ready to hire for the position, initially on a six-month consultancy contract. However, this is a specialist job so we are appealing far and wide for applicants.

If any in the ICANN community know of someone with the right expertise and experience, and if you wish to aid ICANN in becoming a multilingual organization, please past on the details of the job to them.

The job description is online at http://icann.org/en/general/jobs.htm#transcoord, and is also posted below.

Thanks!

Translation Coordinator

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has an immediate opportunity for a Translation Coordinator. The position will act as a consultant to the organization on a renewable contract for approximately 40 hours/week.

Working within a dynamic and fast-growing organisation, this position reports to the Corporate Affairs department.

JOB DUTIES:

* Provide effective administrative and supervisory services in the implementation of multilingualism at ICANN, by managing and using resources efficiently, ensuring an optimal mix of outsourcing and internal capacity.

* Plan and manage the provision of translation and manage external translation resources. In general, handle the day-to-day operation as well as the process of implementation of a translation program for the organisation.

* Supervise and monitor the performance of all vendors of translation and interpretation services.

* Monitor budgets and vendor relationships.

* Plan and oversee all resources committed to the process of implementing the translation policy, including a tender process for the provision of translation services, guided by best practices.

* Ensure that the translation, revision, editing, report writing, document referencing, text processing and related activities related to translation are carried out with utmost efficiency, within the specified deadlines and according to high standards.

* With respect to multilingualism, make long-term and short-term work projections based on the calendar of conferences and meetings. Develops and maintains, in a cost-effective manner, an efficient network of skilled external staff to ensure adequate capacity at all times of the year.

* Make recommendations to Senior Management on policy with respect of recruitment, training, contractual status, and all other administrative and operational matters affecting the translation function and - in coordination with those designated to represent each department as regards translation - of linguistic standards.

* Establish and/or advise on training courses and/or other resources required to ensure staff capacity to transition from working in a monolingual to a multilingual environment, including computer training, with special attention to translation-related software. Establish terminology standards in coordination with the staff and in consultation and coordination with languages services provided by vendors.

* Hold regular meetings with the designated representatives of each department with respect to translation, as well as senior staff as necessary, to improve efficiency and identify problem areas, if any, before they develop.

* Ensure the smooth functioning of the translation function, advising on and helping to implement technological measures to promote access to information such as document management systems, document workflow process, and the like.

* Establish quality control guidelines and continually evaluate their efficacy. Ensure quality control of individual translation projects.

REQUIREMENTS:

Professionalism -­Thorough knowledge of language issues; ability tooperate in a cost-effective manner ensuring an optimal mix of outsourcing and internal resources and to serve as final arbiter on technical issues arising in the translation function; and analytical skills.

Performance Management - Strong managerial/supervisory skills; tact andnegotiating skills, good judgment and decision-making skills. Ability to establish priorities and to plan, coordinate and monitor the work of others; ability to make timely decisions; ability to coach, mentor and develop staff and encourage good performance.

Communication-­ Excellent drafting ability and communication skills,

both oral and written; ability to defend and explain difficult issues with respect to key decisions.

Teamwork - Good interpersonal skills; demonstrated ability in amulticultural, multi-ethnic environment to maintain effective working relations with people of different national and professional backgrounds; ability to organize and motivate those under her/his supervision.

Computer skills - Strong knowledge of the provision of contractual services in translation. Knowledge of a documentation and staff monitoring system preferred.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Advanced degree in Translation, Social Sciences, Finance, Business Administration, Management or a related field.

Bachelor’s Degree with a relevant combinationof academic and professional qualifications.

8- 10 years of progressively responsible translation experience, of which at least five years in an international organisation (public or private) and three years of demonstrated, successful supervisory or managerial experience, or a combination of language-related experience and equivalent knowledge and experience in business administration and management in international organizations, may be accepted.

Languages:

English is the working language of ICANN. Fluency in English, both written and oral, to a high standard is required. Working knowledge of one additional UN official language is desired. Knowledge of additional UN official languages would be an asset.

ICANN:

ICANN is responsible for the global coordination of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. These include domain names (like .org, .com), as well as the addresses used in a variety of Internet protocols. Computers use these identifiers to reach each other over the Internet. Careful management of these resources is vital to the Internet’s operation, so ICANN’s global stakeholders meet regularly to develop policies that ensure the Internet’s ongoing security and stability. For further information on ICANN, see http://www.icann.org.

EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST:

This is an exciting opportunity to create and manage, from the ground up, a translation system that will encourage participation from a global audience in the organization¹s processes.
If you are interested in this position, please send a cover letter and complete curriculum vitae to opportunities@icann.org referencing JOB CA 0806.All statements of interest or inquiries about this position will be kept in confidence.

As part of the Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN consultation, we are holding a series of regional consultative meetings where the documents created by the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) are outlined and attendees are given the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

The first of these occurred last week in Montevideo at the LACNIC meeting; the second will take place in a few hours in Christchurch, New Zealand at the APNIC conference. At 1.30pm local time, for an hour and a half, in Hall C of the Christchurch Convention Centre, the issue of vital changes to be made to the ICANN model will be addressed (see below for info on other timezones).

Fortunately, APNIC has a sophisticated remote participation system in place so if you wish to find out what is going on, or watch events, or enter the dedicated chatroom, follow this link: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/26/remote/hallc/.

If you want more information about the IIC consultation, please visit its dedicated webpages at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/.

New Zealand: 13.30
GMT/UTC: 01.30
New York (EST): 21.30
Los Angeles (PST): 18.30

In February I commented about how we have been doing some research into the use of unallocated address space on the Internet. I hoped that I could give a report on the results sooner than this but the work has now been done and the results have been made public.

Duane Wessels of The Measurement Factory analysed DNS queries for evidence of how unallocated IPv4 addresses are being used and presented them at the last OARC meeting, last month. The results cannot give a complete view of what is happening, as it does not see what is happening in private, behind closed firewalls. Nonetheless, these are useful data.

We will be using these data to help plan for the last few IPv4 allocations to the RIRs.

The July edition of the ICANN magazine is out, emailed to subscribers and available for review online.

Each issue covers the latest news and events, plus outlines how you can interact with the organization. This month, alongside the usual policy rundown, compliance summary, Board meeting precis, public comment digest, and blog complendium, is a briefing note for the recent Paris meeting and some early details about the Cairo meeting.

The hope is that, no matter which part of ICANN you are interested in, this magazine will act as an entry point and make people more aware of the other work that the organization carries out every month.

Feedback, as ever, is welcome. If you wish to receive the magazine automatically to your inbox, there is a very simple sign-up box above the magazine on the main magazine webpage at http://www.icann.org/magazine/.

As with previous meetings, we have prepared a “briefing note” for Paris to act as a broad summary of what happened over the five days. It has been published on the Paris meeting site and we republish it below.

What was it?

ICANN’s 32nd international public meeting was one of three held annually to conduct policy development and outreach. It was hosted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and Agifem, a non-profit organization made up of several French Internet companies and organizations.

The meeting was opened by the Eric Besson, France’s Minister of State for forward planning, assessment of public policies, and development of the digital economy.

1,672 people participated from 166 different countries, making this ICANN’s biggest ever meeting. The participants engaged in a wide range of discussions about the Internet’s domain name system and related issues.

Further information about the meeting, including presentations and transcripts, is available at http://par.icann.org/.

ICANN’s next international public meeting will take place in Cairo, Egypt, beginning on 3rd November, 2008.

What happened and what are the next steps?

Many meetings, workshops, public forums and informal discussions were held over six days by the different stakeholders of the ICANN model:
• business interests
• civil society
• governments and government agencies
• Internet service providers
• registrants
• registrars
• registries
• the technical community

Several key issues and themes evolved over the course of the meeting. They are summarized below.

NEW gTLDs

ICANN’s Board of Directors took a significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains (new gTLDS - extensions to the domain name system in addition to, for example, .COM or .INFO). The Board approved the policy recommendations on new gTLDs developed by the GNSO, ICANN’s policy development arm for the generic name space. The Board directed ICANN staff to further develop and complete a detailed implementation plan.

New generic top-level domains were a featured topic of conversation during the meeting. The week began with a dedicated two-and-a-half-hour interactive session where experts from different industries and sectors around the world shared a diversity of views about the potential changes to the Internet as the New gTLD Program is launched. The workshop was presented with MARQUES, the Association of European trademark owners, which represents trademark owners’ interests before EU and other international bodies.

ICANN staff updated the community on how new gTLDs may be implemented, including a timeline and recent steps taken to address potential disputes. Similar updates were presented to the various stakeholders including the GNSO Council.

New gTLDs were also discussed at the Public Forum, later in the week. During the meeting, a number of suggestions for new gTLDs also emerged. The discussions on new gTLDs were the subject of worldwide and widespread press coverage including by BBC, CNN, NBC, Les Echos, Business Week, Le Monde, Liberation, The Times of London, the Financial Times, and other media outlets all over the world.

More information is available on ICANN’s new gTLDs page (http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm). This web page includes a factsheet on the topic written in plain language and accessible to a general audience.

Next steps:
The Board approved the policy recommendations on new gTLDs, drawn up by the GNSO, and directed ICANN staff to further develop and complete a detailed implementation plan.

Before the new gTLD introduction process is launched, the Board will be given a final version of the implementation proposals of the proposed process after a community review.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm

IDNS AND IDN FAST TRACK

Much of the discussion about Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) during the Paris meeting centered on the work of the IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG). The IDNC WG was chartered by the Board at its November 2007 meeting. Its participants were appointed by the following supporting organizations and advisory committees of ICANN: the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), GNSO, Government Advisory Committee (GAC), At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

The group has been working on the issue of an accelerated introduction of IDNs (the “fast track”) where specific, non-controversial country-code top-level domains in non-Latin scripts could be approved and added to the Internet’s root without having to wait for the full approval process to be finalized.

The IDNC WG released its draft final report on the feasibility of this approach for public comment two weeks prior to the Paris meeting. The report provided a number of high-level recommendations and received broad approval from the ccNSO and the GAC.

On the broader topic of IDNs, the Director of the IDN Program, Tina Dam, gave updates to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, describing progress on technical and other IDN implementation issues. IDNs were discussed at the Public Forum, and a progress update was also given on the final day of the meeting.

Of particular interest was how finalization of the IDNA protocol revision would impact top-level IDN domains, in particular when and how they will be introduced.

Next steps:
The Board asked the IDNC WG final report to be posted for public comment and asked staff to produce a detailed report on implementation issues, following consultation with the community, in time for the next meeting in Cairo in November 2008.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm and at http://icann.org/topics/idn

IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENCE

The Paris meeting saw the release of three documents from the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) outlining a new “Improving Institutional Confidence” public consultation.

This consultation’s aim is for the community to discuss possible changes to ICANN in the lead up to the completion of the JPA in September 2009. This work has been led by the PSC whose role is to provide advice to the Board.

The three documents – Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN, Transition Action Plan and Frequently Asked Questions – were used as the basis for a two-hour discussion session. During a public meeting on the issue, the PSC explained how the consultation would work and how people could find out more information at each stage. The issue was also given a dedicated timeslot in the Public Forum.

The documents are currently out for public comment (closing on 31 July).

Next Steps:
The consultation process outlined in the Transition Action Plan will be followed. The entire community is encouraged to read the documents and send their comments in before 31 July.

The documents will then be revised and put out for additional comment in September 2008 in preparation for further discussions at the Cairo meeting in November. A final report by the PSC will be provided to the Board in December.

More information:
More information is available online at: http://icann.org/jpa/iic

INDEPENDENT REVIEWS

The independent review process requires each of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to undergo review every few years to make sure that the organization as a whole continues to serves the needs of the global Internet community.

There are several independent reviews currently underway or soon to be launched. The Board of Directors is also undergoing an independent review in 2008. The Paris meeting saw a number of updates on the current reviews.

GNSO
The GNSO’s review has been completed and it is now in the implementation stage. The Board approved all but one of the recommendations developed by a special Board working group to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO’s policy activities, structure, operations and communications. Recommendations to be implemented include:
• use of a working group model for future policy development
• a revised policy development process
• enhancements to the different constituencies that make up the GNSO
• improved communications.

The Board deferred its final decision on one recommendation - restructuring the GNSO Council – and decided to give the GNSO one last chance to submit a consensus recommendation on how to structure the Council before it makes its final decision in the next few weeks. The Board requested that the GNSO convene a small working group to submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring no later than 25 July. The group is to include one member from each constituency, one of the current Nominating Committee appointees, and one member from each liaison-appointing advisory committee (if that advisory committee so desires).

In a related development, the GNSO Council postponed a vote on a top-level GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan and called for a 21-day public comment forum on the document. That open public comment forum closes on 18 July 2008.

ALAC
Two public sessions and two informal sessions were held to discuss a report from the ALAC’s independent reviewers. The Board’s ALAC review working group held its first sessions. The draft report is currently out for public comment.

Board of Directors
The Boston Consulting Group was selected as the consultant to perform the independent review of the Board of Directors.

Nominating Committee
A working group created by the Board Governance Committee is working on recommendations following the independent evaluators’ report on the Nominating Committee.

Others
The Board established three working groups to review future independent review reports. They will cover: the Board, the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

Next steps:
The reviews will continue to progress through each step in the review process. Updates will be provided at the Cairo meeting in November.

More information:
More information including links to each of the reviews and public comments pages can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/reviews/

REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT

More progress was made on improvements to protections for registrants provided through the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA – the contract ICANN holds with companies that register domain names on behalf of registrants).

15 revised changes and amendments were published in a report currently out for public comment (the comment period closes 4 August 2008). The amendments were outlined in meetings with individual Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, as well as a dedicated one-and-a-half-hour public workshop. RAA amendments also had a specific timeslot for discussion during the Public Forum, and were further outlined at the final day’s report session.

There are four categories of amendment to the RAA:

• Enforcement tools, including graduated sanctions, liability and audit provisions
• Protections for registrants, including possible improvements to data escrow and the ability to make resellers comply with RAA obligations
• A more stable registrar marketplace, including training for registrar operators
• Modernizing the agreement, bringing it up to date with changes in the use and reuse of domain names

Next steps:
The amendments will be revised following input during the public comment period and then shared with the Board, who will determine the next steps.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/

MEETINGS REVIEW

A paper covering possible changes to ICANN meetings themselves was put to the community in a number of different sessions, including several Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee meetings, the opening day public forum, mid-week Public Forum, and the closing-day reports session.
There were two main recommendations in the paper:

• that ICANN move from three to two meetings a year; and
• that one of those meetings be held in a “hub” city.

There was a broad range of views and discussion on both points, as well as discussion of the change to the Paris schedule which saw the meeting end a day earlier on Thursday, rather than on Friday.

Next steps:
The meetings paper is out for public comment until 10 July and will be revised following feedback from the community.

More information:
More information can be found online at:
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#meeting-consultation-2008

IPv6

A number of information sessions on the new Internet Protocol were held in order to the make community more aware of support issues and to outline ways forward.

The ALAC, ccNSO, Registry and Registrar constituencies were also addressed by experts on this topic during their own meetings. Business leaders were given an overview as part of the Business Access Agenda. IPv6 was also discussed during the Public Forum.

The GAC heard from several individuals and organizations, including the OECD and the Names Resource Organization, about current trends and the challenges to IPv6 deployment worldwide.
More information:

A factsheet written in plain and clear language has been produced: “IPv6 – The Internet’s vital expansion - October 2007”. It explains the protocol upgrade to a non-technical audience and is available here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf

BUSINESS ACCESS AGENDA

For the first time, a specific agenda and series of targeted meetings and discussions were held for business leaders in an effort to engage business more effectively within ICANN’s processes.
The agenda included briefings on the most significant topics facing ICANN at the moment, including new gTLDs, IDNs and IPv6, and a meeting with the Board of Directors. It was organized in cooperation with the E-Business, IT and Telecoms Commission of the International Chamber of Commerce.

OTHER ISSUES

• The Board approved a recommendation by the GNSO to tackle “domain tasting”.
• The FY09 ICANN operating plan and budget of $57.1m were adopted by the Board.
• Approval was given to a plan by PIR (the Public Interest Registry) to add the security protocol DNSSEC to the .org registry.
• An “At Large Summit” was approved to enable representatives of Internet user groups (At-Large Structures) to meet together within the next year, most likely at the Mexico City meeting in March 2009.
• The SSAC published a number of new reports and survey results relating to security and stability of the Internet. (http://www.icann.org/committees/security/)
• A number of policy development processes were started or advanced at the GNSO including Fast Flux and inter-registrar transfers.
• The GAC reiterated its strong support for a number of studies into the use and abuse of Whois data, and asked for clarification from the Board on whether studies would depend on the outcome of the GNSO Council’s decision. The GNSO Council created a working group to review recommendations for Whois studies.

It is sometimes said that ISPs do not offer IPv6 transport and equipment vendors offer just partial IPv6 support because there is no customer demand. The counter argument is often made that consumers can only buy what is on offer so people prefer to buy production quality services and equipment.

Unfortunately, even when production quality IPv6 transport and network infrastructure are available it is not always possible to deploy a completely IPv6 accessible network. One problem is the difficulties domain name registrants have when they ask their domain name registrar to include their IPv6 glue in the DNS. Not many domain name registrars support glue registration for IPv6 addresses. This limits their ability to provide an IPv6 DNS service.

The problem was discussed during Registries and Registrars’ IPv6 workshop on the last day of the ICANN meeting in Paris. Raúl Echeberría explained the problems that LACNIC has experienced in registering the glue they need for ns.lacnic.net.

Mohsen Souissi of AFNIC then explained that IPv6 support in domain name registries is no longer the hard work it once was. Most of the tools that are needed already support IPv6 very well and have done so for some time. He was followed by Jean-Claude Michot of BookMyName who explained that introducing support for IPv6 glue was not a complicated process and was done very quickly.

It is possible for a registrar to provide support for IPv6 glue registration without running IPv6 on their network at all and deploying an IPv6 network is now far less painful than it once was. Michele Neylon from Blacknight described a generally positive experience.

We hope that more domain registrars will start offering IPv6 glue registration, which will make it easier for domain name registrants to go ahead and deploy their own IPv6 networks.

The short video above was created to showcase the possibilities that now exist to communicate across languages using video and the latest transcription/translation technology.

It is open to all so that they might be able to translate the message in your language through DotSub’s easy-to-use interface. Just click here to try it out.

ICANN will be using this technology to make videos of its work available to, potentially, everyone on the planet. You just have to think and work, with us, and as a community.

One of the main IDN questions asked by end-users in the last few months, and that have been discussed during the ICANN Paris meeting in the recent week is as follows:

“If I have registered <domainname>.tld, then how will you ensure that I am also the registrant of <domainname>.<idn-tld>, for all languages.”

The question shows that there is an expectation that:

(i) there is a way to translate the .tld into other languages. Having done that with .test I can assure you it is quite a challenge to find a word that is an adequate translation for all users in a community. Often there is more than one way to express the word “test” in various languages. Some existing TLDs might be easier to translate than others, but common for them is that they could be represented several ways within one language.

(ii) that the registry operator for the .tld will apply to become the operator for such new TLD(s), and that if they doso and are successful in their application, that they will implement .tld with an aliasing functionality where registrants under .tld automatically becomes registrants of the same domain names under .idn-tld

On the gTLD side of things:

a. the GNSO policy for introduction of new gTLDs states that there is not precedence for becoming an operator of an IDN TLD. In other words, just because you are operating a TLD today it does not mean that you automatically become the operator for any translated version of that TLD (being IDN or ASCII, but mostly discussed in relation to IDNs).

b. in the process for introduction of new gTLDs there are various objection procedures available. While they are not implemented completely yet you might imagine that the .tld registry operator might object to someone else applying for the IDN version the .tld.

c. The policy does not provide a global direction to registration policy regulations, such as for example whether or not new TLDs should be aliased to an existing TLD.

On the ccTLD side, the situation is similar:

a. the IDNC WG final report does not talk about this specific topic.

b. based on community discussions during the last few months, it could be anticipated some IDN ccTLD will be operated as aliased versions of the existing ccTLDs, and others will not. The decision is usually referred to a difference in opinion on whether there should be IP protection or more competition and choice.

On the technical side of things:

a. aliasing have often been connected to the concept of DNAME. DNAME have been initially tested, and indications are that it will not be useful to provide the aliasing functionality. ICANN is looking into the opportunity for having more tests done on this topic.

b. without a standard way of implementing aliasing the concern is that aliasing will be implemented in many different ways leaving users confused and a need to further education than currently is needed, which could be avoided.

In Summary: There is no guarantee to the registrants, it depends on whether existing registry operators will apply for the IDN version of the their TLDs; that the application is granted; and that they will implement aliasing as their registration policy, which we currently do not have a technical standard for, and which the policies are not providing global direction upon.

One of the main IDN questions asked by end-users in the last few months, and that have been discussed during the ICANN Paris meeting in the recent week is as follows: “If I have registered .tld, then how will you ensure that I am also the registrant of ., for all languages.”

The question shows that there is an expectation that:

(i) there is a way to translate the .tld into other languages.
Having done that with .test I can assure you it is quite a challenge to find a word that is an adequate translation for all users in a community. Often there is more than one way to express the word “test” in various languages. Some existing TLDs might be easier to translate than others, but common for them is that they could be represented several ways within one language.

(ii) that the registry operator for the .tld will apply to become the operator for such new TLD(s), and that if they doso and are successful in their application, that they will implement .tld with an aliasing functionality where registrants under .tld automatically becomes registrants of the same domain names under .idn-tld

On the gTLD side of things:

a. the GNSO policy for introduction of new gTLDs states that there is not precedence for becoming an operator of an IDN TLD. In other words, just because you are operating a TLD today it does not mean that you automatically become the operator for any translated version of that TLD (being IDN or ASCII, but mostly discussed in relation to IDNs).

b. in the process for introduction of new gTLDs there are various objection procedures available. While they are not implemented completely yet you might imagine that the .tld registry operator might object to someone else applying for the IDN version the .tld.

c. The policy does not provide a global direction to registration policy regulations, such as for example whether or not new TLDs should be aliased to an existing TLD.

On the ccTLD side, the situation is similar:

a. the IDNC WG final report does not talk about this specific topic.

b. based on community discussions during the last few months, it could be anticipated some IDN ccTLD will be operated as aliased versions of the existing ccTLDs, and others will not. The decision is usually referred to a difference in opinion on whether there should be IP protection or more competition and choice.

On the technical side of things:

a. aliasing have often been connected to the concept of DNAME. DNAME have been initially tested, and indications are that it will not be useful to provide the aliasing functionality. ICANN is looking into the opportunity for having more tests done on this topic.

b. without a standard way of implementing aliasing the concern is that aliasing will be implemented in many different ways leaving users confused and a need to further education than currently is needed, which could be avoided.

In Summary: There is no guarantee to the registrants, it depends on whether existing registry operators will apply for the IDN version of the their TLDs; that the application is granted; and that they will implement aliasing as their registration policy, which we currently do not have a technical standard for, and which the policies are not providing global direction upon.

A l’initiative de Kieren McCarthy, le responsable de la participation publique de l’ICANN, une newsletter est publiée tous les jours pendant les réunions internationales. Pour la réunion de Paris, cette newsletter est proposée en anglais et en français. Vous y trouverez un résumé des évènements de la veille et une liste des réunions ou ateliers phares de la journée. Pour découvrir cette newsletter, connectez-vous sur le site de la réunion et suivez le lien “newsletter”.

The Paris meeting beings next week, and we are extremely grateful to receive this video from the boys at Domaine.info - acting as an ad for the conference. Domaine.info will also be filming the meeting and preparing edited highlights of the biggest sessions of each day.

Vendredi dernier, dans les locaux du MEDEF avenue Bosquet à Paris, était organisée une séance de familiarisation avec l’ICANN. Au programme, des explications sur la structure de l’ICANN et le fonctionnement de ses réunions internationales. Ainsi l’agenda de la réunion de Paris a-t-il été détaillé pour permettre aux nombreux représentants d’entreprises présents (une cinquantaine d’entreprises étaient représentées) de mieux identifier les ateliers ou plénières les plus intéressants pour eux. Y a été expliqué le principe, nouveau pour la réunion de Paris, de rendez-vous “business” regroupant sous la bannière “Business Access Events” ces évènements destinés plus spécifiquement aux entreprises.

Les grands sujets de la réunion de Paris ont également été abordés : IDNs, nouvelles extensions, Joint Project Agreement… Certains participants ont témoigné des inquiétudes des entreprises face aux questions de protection de leur propriété intellectuelle, notamment dans la cadre de l’éventuelle sortie de nouvelles extensions ou de la généralisation des IDNs. Anne-Rachel Inné et Massimiliano Minisci, respectivement responsables des relations avec l’Afrique et l’Europe pour l’ICANN, ont donné un message fort : l’ICANN, c’est nous tous ! En participant à ses réunions, en s’impliquant dans son fonctionnement, tous peuvent faire entendre leur voix et prendre en compte leurs inquiétudes. Car au final, lorsque le Conseil d’administration prend une décision, il le fait en prenant en compte ce que lui remonte la communauté.

De quoi inciter les entreprises françaises à profiter de la première réunion internationale de l’ICANN organisée à Paris pour y participer et ainsi approfondir leurs connaissances des différents collèges – gouvernements, business, registrars, registries, extensions nationales, techniques, ALAC – qui font la richesse et la diversité de l’ICANN. D’ailleurs, il a été rappelé que même si les inscriptions enligne sont maintenant fermées, il reste tout à fait possible de venir s’enregistrer directement sur place pour la réunion. Un enregistrement gratuit, et ouvert à tous, comme la plupart des ateliers et autres réunions prévus au programme de Paris.